You might say something more like
positive_test(name_of_engine_1, engineargs, message) => noconsent
positive_test(name_of_engine_2, engineargs, message) => consent
etc...
I guess someone could standardise this (using whatever language they
wanted), and there are some kinds of content filter (probably quite
simple things---the sort of thing that SIEVE can do, say) that we
could standardise on. That might be useful.
Well no, this isn't really the kind of thing that sieve
( http://www.cyrusoft.com/sieve/ ) is for - as I understand it.
Indeed, somebody could standardise this - if somebody wanted to make it
simple for MUA to talk to policy enforcement agents.
It's not a solution to spam, though, because some things really are
things that can't be checked automatically, so the content filtering
will be imperfect. And (if it were to be standardised) we can expect
it to become more and more imperfect.
No - it isn't THE "Solution to Spam". However, you can plug A "solution to
spam" right into it.
positive_test(foolproof_spam_detector, engineargs, message)
=> noconsent
It's one way of looking at part of a consent framework.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg